Tarabishi v. Hart
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:23-cv-01231
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tarabishi v. Hart, Judge Van Keulen ordered a response on whether administrative exhaustion gave the court jurisdiction over the tort claim.
Houda Tarabishi, who must address whether she completed the required administrative process, and the United States, which was automatically substituted for Christina Hart as the defendant.
What happened
In Tarabishi v. Hart, Houda Tarabishi, representing herself, filed a tort case in state court. Christina Hart removed it to federal court after certifying that she was acting within her employment duties, which caused the United States to replace Hart as the defendant and required the claim to proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that Tarabishi had not first completed the required administrative process. Tarabishi had not alleged that she completed that process and did not oppose the motion.
Judge Susan Van Keulen did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, she ordered Tarabishi to respond and appear to explain why the court has jurisdiction, while vacating the previously scheduled hearing; the parties could alternatively agree to dismiss the case under Rule 41.
The detailed version
- Tarabishi v. Hart · No. 5:23-cv-01231
- Susan Van Keulen
- Apr. 18, 2023
Background
Houda Tarabishi, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a tort action against Christina Hart in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court on February 14, 2023. Hart removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 17, 2023. Hart certified under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) that she was acting within the course and scope of her employment when the alleged incident occurred.
Because of that certification, the claim against Hart was treated as a claim against the United States, which was automatically substituted as the defendant. The claim therefore had to proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal law governing certain tort claims against the United States.
Jurisdiction Issue
The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argued, with supporting evidence, that Tarabishi had not exhausted the required administrative remedies before filing suit. The order states that exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Tarabishi had not alleged that she exhausted those remedies and had not opposed the motion.
Order
The court ordered Tarabishi to respond in writing by May 16, 2023, and to appear on May 23, 2023, to show why the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and why the action should not be dismissed. The court vacated the May 2, 2023 hearing on the United States’ motion to dismiss. The parties could instead stipulate to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 by May 16, in which case they would not need to appear. This order itself did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.